51. Sam's Flea!

Comment #33460 by Hip_Priest on April 20, 2007 at 8:28 am

Shake up two bottles of soda and put them on a table where everyone can see them. Let them both fizz over like crazy. Which one is winning the debate? Dawkins or me?

I once added poprocks to coke - does that count as an argument? If so who won?

Dammit now I'm gonna waste an hour watching diet coke and mentos videos on youtube.

52. Sam's Flea!

Comment #33398 by Hip_Priest on April 20, 2007 at 2:52 am

Normally I don't like ad hominem attacks and will try to look at actual arguments in debates like these. Then I read neversweats links. This guy is a complete nutjob. A total wacko. Barmy. Seriously, he's mental.

53. Sam's Flea!

Comment #33389 by Hip_Priest on April 20, 2007 at 2:07 am

And when I have made that point, you bet I'm done, because the argument's done. Put a fork in it. And if there is no God, it is not a metaphor. Shake up two bottles of soda and put them on a table where everyone can see them. Let them both fizz over like crazy. Which one is winning the debate? Dawkins or me?

Wow, we're bottles of pop. Chemical reactions. Nothing matters, lets go KRAZY! Thanks Douglas, its all crystal clear now.

Even if our notions of good and evil, right and wrong, love and hate mean nothing in a cosmological sense, external to human thoughts, actions and discourse this doesn't make them completely worthless as you seem to think.

Why do we need external validation?

54. NEXT MONDAY: Bill O'Reilly interviews Richard Dawkins

Comment #33235 by Hip_Priest on April 19, 2007 at 4:39 pm

How is Fox billing the "topic" of the program on which RD will appear? What is the subject of that night's episode?

Tonight: The War on Secularism! Do athiests want to destroy america? Are christians delusional? We ask profesional anti-religion author Richard Dawkins who, in his book 'The God Delusion' suggests that his fellow secularists should take the battle to our children...

55. NEXT MONDAY: Bill O'Reilly interviews Richard Dawkins

Comment #33215 by Hip_Priest on April 19, 2007 at 3:27 pm

The bit I'm looking forward to the most is O'Reilly barking "Why are you athiests so DAMN ANGRY!?" at a calm Dawkins.

56. NEXT MONDAY: Bill O'Reilly interviews Richard Dawkins

Comment #33203 by Hip_Priest on April 19, 2007 at 2:54 pm

Bookman writes:

93% of Fox News's viewership is Republican and most of those are theists.

I guess the other 7% are people like me - watching out of a morbid sense of curiosity.

57. Pope says science too narrow to explain creation

Comment #33180 by Hip_Priest on April 19, 2007 at 2:22 pm

For the atheist (or as I like to call them…. "the brighty brights") how can you rationalize what is good for humanity, or society, in the context of there being some form of "common good" or "mutual respect" or "compassion for the living" when no such things exist in reality. All of existence is completely absurd and therefore any notion of ones actions (as) being reprehensible is just a personal subjective observation, based on the conditions of which you have been raised. The absurdity of people believing in "God" is indeed "par for the course" in a universe that exists as a result of pure unadulterated blind dumb luck….. Take the mass murder that occurred at VT earlier this week. To say this was a tragedy needs clarification; a tragedy to those who were directly affected….? Perhaps, in their "delusional" minds it was a tragedy….. but we know that no such "tragedy" exists in reality…. Therefore, should we mock and ridicule the afflicted; proclaim that the sooner they can "break the shackles" of their delusion…. The better off they'll be?

Uuurgh. This ramble sounds like the arguments Douglas Wilson (Sam's flea) was using. Even if the logical outcome of a godless universe was that morality is impossible, notions of reality were absurd and that there is nothing wrong with mass murder, this is still no argument for god's existence. It suggests that belief in god may be comforting or even useful - but not true. As it turns out though, this is not the logical conclusion that most people come to, and even if it were (in a purely philosophical sense) thankfully most people are perfectly capable of behaving and treating others with respect without any well-established personal moral philosophy.

Even if our notions of good and evil, right and wrong, love and hate mean nothing in a cosmological sense, external to human thoughts, actions and discourse this doesn't make them completely worthless as you seem to think.

However, what this has to do with the Pope's opinions on evolution, I have no idea. TROLL!!

58. Sam's Flea!

Comment #32904 by Hip_Priest on April 18, 2007 at 4:31 pm

Big T, Andrew did reply. He seemed to suggest that it was his last though.

http://www.beliefnet.com/story/214/story_21446_1.html

59. Sam's Flea!

Comment #32900 by Hip_Priest on April 18, 2007 at 4:26 pm

Douglas,

I think you really need to try and understand humanism and the moral philosophies that athiests tend to suscribe to.

First, Darwinism is an explanation for the complexity of life NOT a moral philosophy. Even if Darwinism and the 'selfish gene' meant brutally selfish behaviour (which it doesn't, it can also breed altruistic behaviour - read the Selfish Gene its a good intro to these ideas) any evolutionist who suggests that this means it should be adopted as a ethical code of conduct is making a dangerous leap of logic.

Second, humanism in its most basic form (as I understand it) is based on very few assumptions: That my experience and consiousness (whether arrising from materialistic or supernatural means) is very real. That yours is similar and just as real as mine (to you at least.) And that your happiness and wellbeing is just as important as mine - as is your suffering, pain or unhappiness.

People are the most complex, intelligent, emotional, wonderful objects in the known universe and should be treasured as such. Maybe our experiences are insignificant in a chemical or cosmological sense, as are our notions of good and evil, love and hate. I don't think this makes them any less worthy of our attention and effort.

60. Sam's Flea!

Comment #32783 by Hip_Priest on April 18, 2007 at 8:51 am

I've just listened to the show. Jessie's summary is pretty accurate. What I found more surprising were the ads. Seriously scary stuff. What more born again christians need, apparantly, is a 'biblical world view'

61. Atheism isn't the final word

Comment #32429 by Hip_Priest on April 17, 2007 at 3:46 am

Comment #32354 by moopet on April 16, 2007 at 11:46 pm

"history reveals the unmistakable footprints of something greater than man"
...

Is this guy after Bigfoot?:

LOL

62. Irish poll shows parents no longer want to force religion on to children

Comment #32422 by Hip_Priest on April 17, 2007 at 3:24 am

Rampant atheism? With 97% schools being catholic schools? My arse.

My theory is that there's rampant athiesm because there's 97% catholic schooling. I attended catholic school for two years and, for me at least, nothing has ever ignited such fierce skepticism as a daily dose of the good old superstition and dogma.

63. For God's Sake

Comment #31847 by Hip_Priest on April 14, 2007 at 3:51 pm

In any other forum on any other website regarding any other issue I would have said Spaghetti Monster is a little drunk. His tone is aggresive and his logic bogus. Then I realized were're talking about religion and god...

64. For God's Sake

Comment #31636 by Hip_Priest on April 13, 2007 at 2:55 pm

Spaghetti Monster, most people find a god that will not be defined rather unsatisfactory. They prefer a more definible god. You know, the kind that hates gays/women/infidels etc but loves zygotes/wars/unquestioning obediance to religious authority. Thats what we're worried about. I'm pretty sure most religious people would also find your undefinible god quite bemusing, yet you feel the need to defend them and claim that interfering with 21st century politics based on the advice of ancient literature is nothing to be worried about. It is something to be very worried about.

65. Pope says science too narrow to explain creation

Comment #31535 by Hip_Priest on April 13, 2007 at 7:29 am

Lord Asriel writes:

If you dislike the Pope as a person and/or his office (and there are many reasons to do so) I think in all fairness this is not the argument to put forward.

There's so much to go on already! Mocking the pope is like shooting fish in a barrel already without introducing (often dubious) claims of Nazi cooperation to the list.

At least with John Paul II it felt like there could be a real debate about his relevence. If nothing else, catholics could wave a nobel peace prize in your face and claim he single-handedly defeated communism in Poland.

66. Pope says science too narrow to explain creation

Comment #31442 by Hip_Priest on April 12, 2007 at 5:29 pm

Earlier I said:

I know which failing I'd rather criticize him about. His 'genocidal stupidity' regarding contraception for starters.

I've changed my mind. Lets criticize Ratzinger for being a dangerous fundamentalist bigot AND a Nazi tool. Just realized they're not mutually exclusive. D'uh! Pope-bashing shouldn't be so damn easy.

67. Pope says science too narrow to explain creation

Comment #31434 by Hip_Priest on April 12, 2007 at 4:56 pm

Ian, you write:

A world leader should have had the integrity and the ingenuity to not be co-opted. He should have recognised the Nazi regime for what it was and resisted it. Oherwise, be a plumber with my blessing, but not head of the world's largest religious organisation.

I see your point. Confronted with the despicable evils of Nazism is inaction really good enough when you're the pope? In his defense (I never thought I'd be in the position of defending the pope LOL) none of his family were Nazi party memebers and his father was a critic. However nothing they did resulted in any repurcussions worse than the family having to move. It appears they did more than most in terms of criticising the Nazis but a hell of a lot less than some, and it doesn't appear they were ever in grave danger.

Lets be fair, the Pope's not a Nazi and probably wasn't ever one. Yes, he could have been a hero. I imagine Nazi resistance was incredibly difficult but not impossible. But do we want a pope who is a WWII hero or a man who can move the catholic church in a less fundamental and more tolerant direction?

Ratzinger's neither but I know which failing I'd rather criticize him about. His 'genocidal stupidity' regarding contraception for starters. (is that Sam Harris' phrase?)

68. Pope says science too narrow to explain creation

Comment #31422 by Hip_Priest on April 12, 2007 at 3:28 pm

Ian writes:

I find it incredible that anyone is taking the line that we should forgive this pope his membership of the Hitler Youth.

Ratzinger was a victim of circumstance. Membership in the Hitler Youth was a legal requirement not a choice. There is no evidence that he was a supporter of Nazism and this was hardly a political climate in which he could be a vocal critic.

Lets criticize the Poop for his unwillingness to reform a sexist and homophobic church or change his deathly position regarding contraception. He may be a dangerously powerful fundamentalist but he's not a Nazi.

69. Pope says science too narrow to explain creation

Comment #31335 by Hip_Priest on April 12, 2007 at 4:08 am

Reading some articles by religiosos on this site I often get seduced by claims that religion is actually about appreciating the grandeur of our awesome and mysterious universe. That churches are places of contemplation and meditation, hothouses of moral philosophy, installing in us a sense of ethical responsibility and love of out fellow man. That religious ceremony is is a uniting, not dividing experience. God is not the crude figure that writers like Dawkins describe, but merely a metaphor for the incomprehensible. Religious authority doesn't install dogmatic unquestioning belief in our young but rather hope, however futile, that there may just be a loving force in the universe and life everafter.

Then the Pope, THE spokesman for christianity makes an announcement and my sanity is restored.

70. Even non-believers must recognise the moral necessity of Christianity

Comment #30702 by Hip_Priest on April 9, 2007 at 11:56 am

But our ethical heritage is sadly depleted. Its two wells were the Classics and Christianity. The Classical well has already ceased to function. The Christian one may run dry even before the oil wells.

If our ethical heritage is so unimpressive, it couldn't possibly have anything to do with the stranglehold christianity held on our moral discourse for centuries...

71. Jesus and Mo: Dummy

Comment #30138 by Hip_Priest on April 7, 2007 at 3:21 am

Logicel writes:

Spermade?

http://www.jesusandmo.net/2006/12/20/union/
http://www.jesusandmo.net/2006/12/25/james/
http://www.jesusandmo.net/2006/12/27/seed/

I still don't understand why the Pakistani government finds this website so offensive...

72. 'God Is Not a Moderate'

Comment #30052 by Hip_Priest on April 6, 2007 at 12:19 pm

roach writes:

When I first heard Andrew Sullivan speak I was quickly engaged. The man makes reasoned and articulate arguments when it comes to politics, foreign relations, economics, etc.

I agree. During this exchange I have been visiting his blog regularly. Its more honest than many online political commentaries I have read. One thing that does strike me though is that the conservatism he embraces, much like his rather diluted catholicism, doesn't seem to exist (in America at least, if not the rest of the World) outside of his own writings. I imagine most conservatives in America today would consider Andrew a liberal just as the Pope would probably consider him a heretic.

73. 'God Is Not a Moderate'

Comment #29946 by Hip_Priest on April 5, 2007 at 4:08 pm

Andrew Sullivan has replied to Sam's latest email. Its not on beliefnet yet but is on his blog:

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2007/04/deus_caritas_es.html

It looks like this is his last post. A dissapointing way to end the whole thing if you ask me. He says God is love. He believes the bible is the UNIQUE but not the INERRANT word of god (or love?) There's also something about the contradictions within the gospels actually contributing to the neccessary mystery of the whole resurrection thing.

Yeh, I think I may have done Sullivan a bit of a disservice in that summary. Judge for yourselves.

74. Long live satire

Comment #24399 by Hip_Priest on March 6, 2007 at 12:06 pm

"The president of the university's Islamic society said "I found the magazine hugely offensive ... freedom of expression does not constitute a freedom to offend.""

I can understand the outrage in the theocracies of the middle east amongst those who have not had the benefit of a liberal western education, but from a Cambridge student??